Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Hi Andy,

Thanks for your review.
Basically your understanding is correct.
The background is about the distributed notif, which the global subscription will be decomposed to several component subscriptions.
And the client need to compose the data from multiple publishers. It need to know if all the pieces of one data are received.
Current solution depends on ietf-netconf-notification-messages. I just found it’s expired!
I would like to discuss with authors about the plan on that draft. Fortunately you are one coauthor. Could you please help on the answer?
Otherwise, we can seek other way.

Best,
Tianran

From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:39 AM
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Hi,

I am trying to understand what problem this draft attempts to solve.
It appears from the solution proposal is that the problem to be solved is
the lack of message generator identifiers associated with configured subscriptions.
These identifiers could presumably help a client understand some implementation details
related to a subscription.  The solution seems to rely on the message-generator-id
field in the notification message (which does not exist in current RFCs).

I do not understand why the client needs this feature.

Andy

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net<mailto:kent%2Bietf@watsen.net>> wrote:
NETCONF WG,

Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit input on the following draft:

   Title: Subscription to Distributed Notifications
   Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
   Abstract:
      This documents describes extensions to the YANG notifications
      subscription to allow metrics being published directly from
      processors on line cards to target receivers, while subscription is
      still maintained at the route processor in a distributed forwarding
      system.

In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the following questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.

NETCONF Chairs
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf